Critique of Cosmological Argument

Transcription

1 David Hume: Critique of Cosmological Argument Critique of Cosmological Argument DAVID HUME ( ) David Hume is one of the most important philosophers in the history of philosophy. Born in Edinburgh, Scotland, Hume attended Edinburgh University. He enjoyed great popularity during his lifetime. His six-volume History of England established his reputation as an historian and man of letters. Hume also made many enemies with his skeptical doubts about religion and his attacks on the metaphysical doctrines of his Continental and British predecessors. One of his most influential works, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (1779), which our present reading is from, was published after his death. His friends, like Adam Smith, persuaded him that the work was too controversial and might permanently damage his reputation. David Hume s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion is one of the most celebrated contributions to philosophical theology in Western thought. In this dialogue, a cast of three characters each represents a common attitude about God. Demea is a metaphysical theist whose arguments stand or fall on certain a priori notions about evidence. Cleanthes is an anthropomorphic theist who argues from the fact of the world to the necessity of a divine source. Philo is clearly Hume as the skeptic. In the sections that follow, both Cleanthes and Philo attack the rationalism of Demea. Cleanthes argues that matters of fact cannot be demonstrated by the introduction of a priori assertions. Philo argues that while Demea has assumed that rationality necessarily entails a divine mind, an equally acceptable explanation could be the absolute natural character of the universe. 69

3 David Hume: Critique of Cosmological Argument Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion But if so many difficulties attend the argument a posteriori, said Demea, had we not better adhere to that simple and sublime argument a priori, which by offering to us infallible demonstration, cuts off at once all doubt and difficulty? By this argument, too, we may prove the infinity of the Divine attributes, which, I am afraid, can never be ascertained with certainty from any other topic. For how can an effect, which either is finite, or, for aught we know, may be so; how can such an effect, I say, prove an infinite cause? The unity, too, of Divine Nature, it is very difficult, if not absolutely impossible, to deduce merely from contemplating the works of nature; nor will the uniformity alone of the plan, even were it allowed, give us any assurance of the attribute. You seem to reason, Demea, said Cleanthes, as if those advantages and conveniences in the abstract argument were full proofs of its solidity. But it is first proper, in my opinion, to determine what argument of nature you choose to insist on; and we shall afterwards, from itself, better than from its useful consequences, endeavor to determine what value we ought to put upon it. The argument, replied Demea, which I would insist on, is the common one. Whatever exists must have a cause or reason of its existence; it being absolutely impossible for anything to produce itself, or be the cause of its own existence. In mounting up, therefore, from effects to causes, we must either go on in tracing an infinite regression, without any ultimate cause at all; or must at last have recourse to some ultimate cause, that is necessarily existent. Now, that the first supposition is absurd, may be thus proved. In the infinite chain or succession of causes and effects, each single effect is determined to exist by the power and efficacy of that cause which immediately preceded; but the whole external chain or succession, taken together, is not yet determined or caused by anything; and yet it is evident that it requires a cause or reason, as much as any particular object which begins to exist in time. The question is still reasonable, why this particular succession of causes existed from eternity, and not any other succession, or no succession at all. If there be no necessarily existent being, any supposition which can be formed is equally possible; nor is there any more absurdity in nothing s having existed from eternity, than there is in that succession of causes which constitutes the universe. What was it, then, which determined something to exist rather than nothing, and bestowed being on a particular possibility, exclusive 71

4 Part II. The Philosophy of Religion of the rest? External causes, there are supposed to be none. Chance is a word without meaning. Was it nothing? But that can never produce anything. We must, therefore, have recourse to a necessarily existent being, who carries the reason of his existence in himself, and who cannot be supposed not to exist, without an expressed contradiction. There is, consequently, such a being; that is, there is a Deity. I shall not leave it to Philo, said Cleanthes, though I know that starting objections is his chief delight, to point out the weakness of this metaphysical reasoning. It seems to me obviously ill-grounded and at the same time of so little consequence to the cause of true piety and religion, that I shall myself venture to show the fallacy of it. I shall begin with observing, that there is an evident absurdity in pretending to demonstrate a matter of fact, or to prove it by any argument a priori. Nothing is demonstrable, unless the contrary implies a contradiction. Nothing, that is distinctly conceivable, implies a contradiction. Whatever we conceive as existent, we can also conceive as nonexistent. There is no being, therefore, whose non-existence implies a contradiction. Consequently, there is no being, whose existence is demonstrable. I propose this argument as entirely decisive, and am willing to rest the whole controversy upon it. It is pretended that the Deity is a necessarily existent being; and this necessity of his existence is attempted to be explained by asserting that, if we knew his whole essence or nature, we should perceive it to be as impossible for him not to exist as for twice two not to be four. But it is evident, that this can never happen, while our faculties remain the same as at present. It will still be possible for us, at any time, to conceive the non-existence of what we formerly conceived to exist; nor can the mind ever lie under a necessity of supposing any object to remain always in being; in the same manner as we lie under a necessity of always conceiving twice two to be four. The words, therefore, necessary existence, have no meaning; or, which is the same thing, none that is consistent. But further; why may not the material universe be the necessarily existent being, according to this pretended explication of necessity? We dare not affirm that we know all the qualities of matter; and for aught we can determine, it may contain some qualities, which, were they known, would make its non-existence appear as great a contradiction as that twice two is five. I find only one 72

5 David Hume: Critique of Cosmological Argument argument employed to prove, that the material world is not the necessarily existent being; and this argument is derived from the contingency both of the matter and form of the world. Any particle of matter, it is said, may be conceived to be annihilated; and any form may be conceived to be altered. Such an annihilation or alteration, therefore, is not impossible. But it seems a great partiality not to perceive, that the same argument extends equally to the Deity, so far as we have any conception of him; and that the mind can at least imagine him to be non-existent, or his attributes to be altered. It must be some unknown, inconceivable qualities, which can make his non-existence appear impossible, or his attributes unalterable: And no reason can be assigned, why these qualities may not belong to matter. As they are altogether unknown and inconceivable, they can never be proved incompatible with it. Add to this, that in tracing an eternal succession of objects, it seems absurd to inquire for a general cause or first author. How can anything that exists from eternity, have a cause, since that relation implies a priority in time, and a beginning of existence? In such a chain, too, or succession of objects, each part is caused by that which preceded it, and causes that which succeeds it. Where then is the difficulty? But the whole, you say, wants a cause. I answer, that the uniting of these parts into a whole, like the uniting of several distinct countries into one kingdom, or several members into one body, is performed merely by an arbitrary act of the mind, and has no influence on the nature of things. Did I show you the particular causes of each individual in a collection of twenty particles of matter? I should think it very unreasonable, should you afterwards ask me, what was the cause of the whole twenty? This is sufficiently explained in explaining the cause of the parts. Though the reasoning which you have urged, Cleanthes, may well excuse me, said Philo, from starting any further difficulties, yet I cannot forbear insisting still upon another topic. It is observed by arithmeticians that the products of 9, compose always either 9, or some lesser product of 9, if you add together all the characters of which any of the former products are composed. Thus, of 18, 27, 36, which are products of 9, you make 9 by adding 1 to 8, 2 to 7, 3 to 6. To a superficial observer, so wonderful a regularity may be admired as the effect of chance or design. But a skillful algebraist immediately concludes it to be the work of necessity, and demonstrates, 73

6 Part II. The Philosophy of Religion that it must forever result from the nature of these numbers. Is it not probable, I ask, that the whole economy of the universe is conducted by a like necessity, though no human algebra can furnish a key which solves the difficulty? And instead of admiring the order of natural beings, may it not happen, that, could we penetrate into the intimate nature of bodies, we should clearly see why it was absolutely impossible they could never admit of any other disposition? So dangerous is it to introduce this idea of necessity into the present question and so naturally does it afford an inference directly opposite to the religious hypothesis! From David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion,

The problem of God s cognoscibility in David Hume Djalma Ribeiro The Scottish philosopher and historian David Hume (1711-1776) wrote a book about knowledge called An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding

Spinoza, Ethics 1 of 85 THE ETHICS by Benedict de Spinoza (Ethica Ordine Geometrico Demonstrata) Translated from the Latin by R. H. M. Elwes PART I: CONCERNING GOD DEFINITIONS (1) By that which is self-caused

David Hume on the cosmological argument and the argument from design in the Dialogues A systematic exposition Abstract In the Dialogues concerning Natural Religion (1779), published a few years after his

The design argument First, some discussion of the midterm exam. The midterm will be held in class two weeks from today, on Thursday, October 9. It will be worth 20% of your grade. The material which will

Page 1/7 RICHARD TAYLOR [1] Suppose you were strolling in the woods and, in addition to the sticks, stones, and other accustomed litter of the forest floor, you one day came upon some quite unaccustomed

1. Do you have a self? Who (what) are you? PHL 221, York College Revised, Spring 2014 2. Origins of the concept of self What makes it move? Pneuma ( wind ) and Psyche ( breath ) life-force What is beyond-the-physical?

Do you have a self? Who (what) are you? PHL 221, York College Revised, Spring 2014 Origins of the concept of self What makes it move? Pneuma ( wind ) and Psyche ( breath ) life-force What is beyond-the-physical?

1 In Search of the Ontological Argument Richard Oxenberg Abstract We can attend to the logic of Anselm's ontological argument, and amuse ourselves for a few hours unraveling its convoluted word-play, or

The Cosmological Argument Stage I 1. Causal Premise: Everything of type T has a cause. [note: cause purpose]. 2. Something of type T exists. 3. There is a reason X for thinking that there is a First Cause

1 Copyright Jonathan Bennett [Brackets] enclose editorial explanations. Small dots enclose material that has been added, but can be read as though it were part of the original text. Occasional bullets,

Thus we see, that Descartes and Locke take the road that leads to skepticism without knowing the end of it, but they stop short for want of light to carry them farther. Berkeley, frightened at the appearance

David Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature (1739 1740), Book I, Part III. N.B. This text is my selection from Jonathan Bennett s paraphrase of Hume s text. The full Bennett text is available at http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/.

Davis 1 Why There s Nothing You Can Say to Change My Mind: The Principle of Non-Contradiction in Aristotle s Metaphysics William Davis Red River Undergraduate Philosophy Conference North Dakota State University

Treatise of Human Nature, Book 1 David Hume 1739 Copyright Jonathan Bennett 2017. All rights reserved [Brackets] enclose editorial explanations. Small dots enclose material that has been added, but can

John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690) 1 Book I. Of Innate Notions. Chapter I. Introduction. 1. An inquiry into the understanding, pleasant and useful. Since it is the understanding

Why is there something rather than nothing? Leibniz Avicenna, Proof of the Necessary of Existence Avicenna offers a proof for the existence of God based on the nature of possibility and necessity. First,

From Natural Theology, William Paley, Archdeacon of Carlisle, 1800 CHAPTER I. STATE OF THE ARGUMENT. IN crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to

THE FREEDOM OF THE WILL By Immanuel Kant From Critique of Pure Reason (1781) From: A447/B475 A451/B479 Freedom independence of the laws of nature is certainly a deliverance from restraint, but it is also

Aquinas s Third Way Keith Burgess-Jackson 24 September 2017 Cosmology, a branch of astronomy (or astrophysics), is The study of the origin and structure of the universe. 1 Thus, a thing is cosmological

The Critique of Berkeley and Hume George Berkeley (1685-1753) Idealism best defense of common sense against skepticism Descartes s and Locke s ideas of objects make no sense. Attack on primary qualities

Of the Nature of the Human Mind René Descartes When we last read from the Meditations, Descartes had argued that his own existence was certain and indubitable for him (this was his famous I think, therefore

Concerning God Baruch Spinoza Definitions. I. BY that which is self-caused, I mean that of which the essence involves existence, or that of which the nature is only conceivable as existent. II. A thing

An Answer to Anselm by Gaunilo Abbey at Marmoutier, www.thais.it About the author.... Gaunilo, a Benedictine monk of Marmoutier, expressed his objections to Anselm s argument by means of devising a logical

Idealism from A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge, Part I by George Berkeley (1720) 1. It is evident to anyone who takes a survey of the objects of human knowledge, that they are either

David Hume (1711-1776) was one of the most brilliant thinkers of the Enlightenment, and paradoxically, it was his rigorous employment of the solid, critical reflection so prized by the Enlightenment philosophers

EPISTEMOLOGY for DUMMIES Cary Cook 2008 Epistemology doesn t help us know much more than we would have known if we had never heard of it. But it does force us to admit that we don t know some of the things

The Ethics Part I and II Benedictus de Spinoza ************* Introduction During the 17th Century, when this text was written, there was a lively debate between rationalists/empiricists and dualists/monists.

THE LEIBNIZ CLARKE DEBATES Background: Newton claims that God has to wind up the universe. His health The Dispute with Newton Newton s veiled and Crotes open attacks on the plenists The first letter to

Selection from David Hume s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Parts II and V. (From David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion and the Posthumous Essays Of the Immortality of the Soul and Of

Proof of the Necessary of Existence by Avicenna (Ibn Sīnā), various excerpts (~1020-1037 AD) *** The Long Version from Kitab al-najat (The Book of Salvation), second treatise (~1020 AD) translated by Jon

1/8 Descartes 3: Proofs of the Existence of God Descartes opens the Third Meditation by reminding himself that nothing that is purely sensory is reliable. The one thing that is certain is the cogito. He

Immanuel Kant: The Copernican Revolution The CopernicanRevolution Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) The Critique of Pure Reason (1781) is Kant s best known work. In this monumental work, he begins a Copernican-like

Rel. Stud. 31, pp. 323-328. Copyright? 1995 Cambridge University Press JAMES CAIN THE HUME-EDWARDS PRINCIPLE In such a chain too, or succession of objects, each part is caused by that which preceded it,

Entirely decisive? Hume and the Ontological Argument Simon Marcus May 2011 What was Hume s view of the Ontological Argument? It turns out that this is not an especially easy question to answer, for reasons

The cosmological argument (continued) Remember that last time we arrived at the following interpretation of Aquinas second way: Aquinas 2nd way 1. At least one thing has been caused to come into existence.

1/5 The Critique of Theology The argument of the Transcendental Dialectic has demonstrated that there is no science of rational psychology and that the province of any rational cosmology is strictly limited.

DIALOGUES CONCERNING NATURAL RELIGION (SELECTION) David Hume David Hume (1711-1776) was born and died Edinburgh, having lived and traveled for numerous years in London and Paris. He was a beloved socialite

2017 Summer Preparation Work Philosophy of Religion Theme 1 Arguments for the existence of God Instructions: Philosophy of Religion - Arguments for the existence of God The Cosmological Argument 1. Watch

Hume Hume the Empiricist The Problem of Induction & Knowledge of the External World As an empiricist, Hume thinks that all knowledge of the world comes from sense experience If all we can know comes from

Welcome to 5pm Church Together. If you have come before, then you will know that one of the things we do together is to think apologetically that is, we try and think about how we make a defence for our

BONAVENTURE, ITINERARIUM, TRANSL. O. BYCHKOV 21 CHAPTER THREE ON SEEING GOD THROUGH HIS IMAGE IMPRINTED IN OUR NATURAL POWERS 1. The two preceding steps, which have led us to God by means of his vestiges,

NOT CLASSICAL, COVENANTAL CLASSICAL APOLOGETICS Generally: p. 101 "At their classical best, the theistic proofs are not merely probable but demonstrative". Argument for certainty. By that is meant that

The Causal Relation : Its Acceptance and Denial JOY BHATTACHARYYA It is not at all wise to draw a watertight distinction between Eastern and Western philosophies. The causal relation is a serious problem

1/8 Reid on Common Sense Thomas Reid s work An Inquiry into the Human Mind on the Principles of Common Sense is self-consciously written in opposition to a lot of the principles that animated early modern

Title Page: Spinoza's Ethics / Elwes Translation Baruch Spinoza Ethics Demonstrated in Geometric Order DIVIDED INTO FIVE PARTS, I. Of God. WHICH TREAT AND II. Of the Nature and Origin of the Mind. III.

Hume s An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding G. J. Mattey Spring, 2017 / Philosophy 1 After Descartes The greatest success of the philosophy of Descartes was that it helped pave the way for the mathematical

1 The Rejection of Skepticism Abstract There is a widespread belief among contemporary philosophers that skeptical hypotheses such as that we are dreaming, or victims of an evil demon, or brains in a vat

Introduction to Philosophy Instructor: Jason Sheley Classics and Depth Before we get going today, try out this question: What makes something a classic text? (whether it s a work of fiction, poetry, philosophy,

Review Tutorial (A Whirlwind Tour of Metaphysics, Epistemology and Philosophy of Religion) Arguably, the main task of philosophy is to seek the truth. We seek genuine knowledge. This is why epistemology

Of Probability; and of the Idea of Cause and Effect by David Hume (1711 1776) This is all I think necessary to observe concerning those four relations, which are the foundation of science; but as to the

On Interpretation By Aristotle Based on the translation by E. M. Edghill, with minor emendations by Daniel Kolak. First we must define the terms 'noun' and 'verb', then the terms 'denial' and 'affirmation',

1/12 The A Paralogisms The character of the Paralogisms is described early in the chapter. Kant describes them as being syllogisms which contain no empirical premises and states that in them we conclude

Theory of Knowledge 5. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. (Christopher Hitchens). Do you agree? Candidate Name: Syed Tousif Ahmed Candidate Number: 006644 009

On Interpretation Aristotle Translated by E. M. Edghill Section 1 Part 1 First we must define the terms noun and verb, then the terms denial and affirmation, then proposition and sentence. Spoken words

1/6 The Resolution of the Antinomies Kant provides us with the resolutions of the antinomies in order, starting with the first and ending with the fourth. The first antinomy, as we recall, concerned the

Thomas Aquinas on the World s Duration Thomas Aquinas (1224/1226 1274) was a prolific philosopher and theologian. His exposition of Aristotle s philosophy and his views concerning matters central to the

Free will and foreknowledge Jeff Speaks April 17, 2014 1. Augustine on the compatibility of free will and foreknowledge... 1 2. Edwards on the incompatibility of free will and foreknowledge... 1 3. Response

An Alternate Possibility for the Compatibility of Divine Foreknowledge and Free Will Alex Cavender Ringstad Paper Junior/Senior Division 1 An Alternate Possibility for the Compatibility of Divine Foreknowledge

Philosophy of Religion Aquinas' Third Way Modalized Robert E. Maydole Davidson College bomaydole@davidson.edu ABSTRACT: The Third Way is the most interesting and insightful of Aquinas' five arguments for

36 THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT E. J. Lowe The ontological argument is an a priori argument for God s existence which was first formulated in the eleventh century by St Anselm, was famously defended by René

Aspects of Western Philosophy Dr. Sreekumar Nellickappilly Department of Humanities and Social Sciences Indian Institute of Technology, Madras Module - 14 Lecture - 14 John Locke The empiricism of John

THE MONADOLOGY GOD AND THE PRINCIPLE OF SUFFICIENT REASON I. The Two Great Laws (#31-37): true and possibly false. A. The Law of Non-Contradiction: ~(p & ~p) No statement is both true and false. 1. The

Page 1 Baha i Proofs for the Existence of God Ian Kluge to show that belief in God can be rational and logically coherent and is not necessarily a product of uncritical religious dogmatism or ignorance.

St. Thomas Aquinas Excerpt from Summa Theologica Part 1, Question 2, Articles 1-3 The Existence of God Because the chief aim of sacred doctrine is to teach the knowledge of God, not only as He is in Himself,